Woof, I think we can shut this thread down. The way it looks right now the fix is in for another 4 years of B.O. The Repubs and the Dem's seem to me to be the same party, the Politician Party. They are like two con men playing a mark between them. They act like they don't know eachother and one of them convinces you that you can make some big bucks off the other guy with just a small investment but in the end they're splitting your money and you are left holding a empty bag. I don't see anyone on the republican side that can beat Obama even as weak as he is right now and I don't think that is by accident. It's going to be like last time with McCain even if we get someone with a R by their name they'll be just as bad as B.O. It really is time to start a third Party but it's almost impossible to get anywhere with one. It reminds me of how a local cab company keeps the competition out by having three differently named cab companies; the same guy owns all three. When an outside competitor looks at how small the market is and sees three cab companies already there then they just don't bother to try and get a piece. P.C.

"They act like they don't know eachother and one of them convinces you that you can make some big bucks off the other guy with just a small investment but in the end they're splitting your money and you are left holding a empty bag."

Can you explain a little more what you mean? I think this is my point. The republicans are making a big mistake again. They will have trouble gaining market share with the present message that voting for them is going to help the average Joe more than voting crat.

The people left in the middle wind up endlessly going back from one side to the other picking the least of two evils. Tax steal and transfer wealth for votes just ruins our country. On the other hand letting the wealthy make their own rules to allow them to get filthy rich with the sales pitch they will bring us all along for the ride, I can assure you is NOT SELLING with with middle class America or with Independents.

I agree with Newt for example who was on radio yesterday saying we need an investigation of where all the bailout monies went from the Treasury to bankers. We also need to hold bankers who rigged the system, bribed extorted all over the place and many of whom certainly did steal monies. We need to hold rich AND the dole class accountable. Not one side or the other. We need to get rid of all deductions and make taxation truly fair. I am for cutting taxes big. But everone from the guy on the street to the big shots all must pay a fair share.

I hope this explains what I am saying. I know this is a winner strategy at least for middle or independents. The rich will always want the system rigged. And the growing class on the bottom will always wnat handouts and others to pay up . But this has got to stop on both ends.

Thanks to GM for Trumps view on Kelo, the 'right' to have your property taken for preferred private uses.

a) It means he shares no respect for founding or limiting principles on government, as I see them,

b) unscrupulous past business practices

c) Could not trust him to appoint Supreme Court Justices, in fact the opposite. I would trust him to appoint justices opposed to my own view of the constitution

d) and in keeping with nearly all liberal argument, he rests his rationalization on a false premise:

"...wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place..."

'area that's not good' - Kelo was specifically NOT about removing blight which is already recognized as public purpose.

'move the person that’s living there into a better place' - NO! It is the opposite. A consensual, private purchase of the property is what moves a person into a better place. The Kelo decision along with a willing city council removes that requirement. Valuation law in taking prohibits putting a person in a better place. It puts you only in the same circumstance and worse because it takes away the real value of what you had which was ownership of a demanded location. Trump says he is smart so I say he knows this. As one who has been a victim of a private taking, I say as politely as I know how, he is a G*d d*amned f*cking liar and I will sit out or cast a third party vote rather than vote for a leading advocate of big, all-knowing government taking away private properties for their donors and constituents' preferred private purposes. What limits on government would you recognize if you couldn't see this one in front of your face?

I remember going to Resort International. The first Jersey casino that opened in the 70s. The firist legal csino outside Nevada. I remember seeing this tiny house in the middle of all these giant buildings. Someone told me it was some little old lady who refused to leave/sell her house so the big shots built towers all around her house leaving her with just tiny strip of land and driveway.

The message? You don't want to sell. So screw you. We'll just build it all up around you and drive you out.

It was sickening to look at. I guess it was better than today where the city can force someone to leave their home for the "public" good.

The purpose of Obama re-election fundraising is to scare away other Democrats, not Republicans. It is having no effect on Republicans, another one, Gary Johnson R-NM, jumped in today.

The early fund raising focus is designed as a war chest message to intimidate any/all challenges from within his own party.

Without listing out his problems again for re-election (unemployment? gas prices? debt?), would anyone like to predict if, who and when Dems will see a challenger from within his own party?

I say the first serious challenger in will change the dynamic of the race. Many thought leaders on the left have already spoken up against aspects of the Obama Presidency. Why wouldn't one serious potential candidate step up in defiance to the odds and throw his/her hat into the ring?

Obama could be out with his next big blunder and may very well lose the general election for what he has already done. Whoever is in the race with a credible candidacy could have a significant chance to be the next President of the United States when this one falls completely off the track.

Recall the audacity of Obama entering the race in 2007 against 'the incumbent' Hillary Clinton. It worked for him.

That's right and he used his long shot status as a strength. That was from the opposing party, but still, how do you love your country, believe you have what it takes to be President, watch what is happening across the country and around the world right now, and conclude that this is not the time?-----Besides my endorsement of Tim Pawlenty who with about 4% support keeps getting mentioned with the serious contenders, I like the idea of Herman Cain and Allen West as a ticket, one served at the Fed, one in Afghanistan and in congress, one a business man and one a military man. With the older at the top of the ticket, I am looking for the potential of 16 years of continuity leading the country and the free world. Looking for articulation of unapologetic liberty and conservatism and looking for skill and confidence that will hold up through the campaign and shine through in the debates. They won't have to fake their tea party or outsider status. And enough clarity with the agenda that if they win they will know what to do.

I recall that Reagan in 1976 picked his running mate for balance while still contesting the nomination.

Most evenings I watch the Brett Baier Report on FOX especially the 20 minutes or so of conversation at the end of the hour. Charles Krauthammer is there most nights.

Recently the conversation has touched on Donald Trump and CK has mocked his candidacy. So tonight, prompted by BB, CK told that Trump called him earlier today! CK said DT handled himself well and seriously and assured CK that he was a serious man and that he is running.

Don't be fooled by The Donald. Take it from one who knows: I'm a South Jersey gal who was raised on the outskirts of Atlantic City in the looming shadow of Trump's towers. All through my childhood, casino developers and government bureaucrats joined hands, raised taxes and made dazzling promises of urban renewal. Then we wised up to the eminent-domain thievery championed by our hometown faux free-marketeers.

America, it's time you wised up to Donald Trump's property redistribution racket, too.

Trump has been wooing conservative activists for months and flirting with a GOP presidential run -- first at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington and most recently at a tea party event in South Florida. He touts his business experience, "high aptitude" and "bragadocious" deal-making abilities. But he's no more a standard-bearer of conservative values, limited government and constitutional principles than the cast of "Jersey Shore."

Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government's ability to commandeer private property for purported "public use." Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clause, real estate moguls, parking garage builders, mall developers and sports palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theft in the name of reducing "blight." Under eminent domain, the definition of "public purpose" has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums and casinos.

While casting himself as America's new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump's manifest land development. The real estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limo parking lot -- Coking's private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking's home, explained the confiscatory scheme:

"Unlike most developers, Donald Trump doesn't have to negotiate with a private owner when he wants to buy a piece of property, because a governmental agency -- the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority or CRDA -- will get it for him at a fraction of the market value, even if the current owner refuses to sell. Here is how the process works.

"After a developer identifies the parcels of land he wants to acquire and a city planning board approves a casino project, CRDA attempts to confiscate these properties using a process called 'eminent domain,' which allows the government to condemn properties 'for public use.' Increasingly, though, CRDA and other government entities exercise the power of eminent domain to take property from one private person and give it to another. At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property and also ignore the personal loss to the individuals being evicted."

Trump has attempted to use the same tactics in Connecticut and has championed the reviled Kelo vs. City of New London Supreme Court ruling upholding expansive use of eminent domain. He told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he agreed with the ruling "100 percent" and defended the chilling power of government to kick people out of their homes and businesses based on arbitrary determinations:

"The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that's not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it's local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make (an) area that's not good into a good area, and move the person that's living there into a better place -- now, I know it might not be their choice -- but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good."

Like most statist promises of bountiful job creation, government-engineered redevelopment math rarely adds up. Trump's corporations have backed casino industry bailouts and wealth-redistributing "tax-increment financing" schemes -- the very kind of taxpayer-subsidized interventions we've seen on a grand scale under the Obama administration.

Championing liberty begins at the local level. There is nothing more fundamental than the principle that a man's home is his castle. Donald Trump's career-long willingness to trample this right tells you everything you need to know about his bogus tea party sideshow.

Quite a feud going on between Mike Huckabee and Glen Beck, Beck was addressing it on the radio this morning. I was going to put it on the Beck thread but Huck is presumably a candidate.

Seemed to begin over Beck criticizing Huck's support for Michelle Obama's campaign against child obesity, a worthy cause, and expanded to calling out Huck's record as progressive. Huck says he has thus called him a cancer and a Nazi because Beck has used those terms to describe progressive tactics.

Beck explained and responding back with Huck's record as a progressive / non-conservative, this is a fight within the right that for sure Huckabee does not need. Both have radio shows with unlimited opportunity to respond to each other.

Beck exposes Huck's claim of cutting taxes as Governor. One of those was to exclude private lawn mowing from the sales tax and another was to exclude symphony tickets from the sales tax. Overall Huck raised taxes in Arkansas 47% according to Beck. Then he exposed Huck's illegal immigration stands and then the pardons.

Huck is a Christian and a pastor and giving people a second chance is what they do. But releasing one criminal every 4 days as Governor didn't work out for him; it led to the slaughter of 4 police officers, as GM has posted here. He should not have interfered with the justice system in that respect.

Picking a fight with Beck especially while he is down shows bad judgment for Huckabee IMO if he is a candidate. Support for the obesity program could have been easily defended and he could have drawn a distinction with Michelle Obama's position which calls for a complete federal takeover of all school nutrition including vending machines - if other means are unsuccessful.

Huckabee, attacking the Beck progressive conspiracy theory, should read Crafty's post today about spending drifting recently from 18% of GDP to 24.4% just or take a closer look at the advisers and czars that Beck has been attacking and exposing and point out where he is wrong.

Dogs Against Romney is back for the 2012 campaign, and has established a website and twitter page (HT: Steve Bainbridge). The group is devoted to publicizing the notorious incident where Mitt Romney strapped the family dog Seamus in a dog carrier attached to the roof of his car, and then kept him there for a twelve hour-long trip until the dog relieved himself and ended up covered in excrement.

I am no great fan of Romney’s, largely because of his poor record on government spending and regulation while he was governor of Massachusetts. At the same time, I’m not sure that Romney was being deliberately cruel to his dog in this case or “torturing” it, as some claim. I think it’s more likely that his behavior was simply thoughtless and foolish.

That said, it’s surprising that this anecdote came to light because Romney himself proudly recounted it to the Boston Globe as an example of his skill at “crisis management.” I would not expect a prominent politician and leading presidential contender to have such a tin ear for how a story like this will play in the court of public opinion.

His personal likability is higher than the support for his policies. Hard to say how that translates into votes in Nov 2012. If things are still bad, people may equate his personal shortcomings with his performance as President. Or still like him but vote for someone else.

"...we do need the politics of personal destruction (if we 'pardon' this phrase made famous by BJ bill jefferson Clinton), as well as beating him on the issues."

He deserves what he gets but it could easily backfire. Let's say he was covering up a big secret of his mother. I'm sure his damage control people are working full force, ready to spin it all by the time it comes out to make him the victim. Meanwhile unemployment is 12% in Calif, gas unaffordable, drilling outlawed, states bankrupt, debt downgraded, dollar imploding, economy stagnated, health care costs worse than ever with choices disappearing and waivers exploding, wars breaking out, etc.

"We need to dig and dig and dig. The more this guy gets exposed as a serial liar the better." - Yes, but there is plenty of material there based on policy alone. Again he deserve all the scrutiny. OTOH if it looks like that is the main strategy, it cheapens the political-economic-freedom arguments and could give him a way out. Best for the personal stuff to be done by fringe kooks- thank you Trump!

"illegals will be pardoned on January 19th!!!"

- Pardon is not a grant of citizenship. I think that has to go through the congress first for his signature. But your larger point is well-taken. Pardons, executive orders, recess appointments, agency and czar directives like the EPA action against fossil fuels and Dept. of Commerce against a free internet, plenty is being done outside of congressional approval.

Even if half or all of our current mess was George Bush's fault, we should know by now that a sharp left turn with Obama was not the right answer. As IMF points out, we will be overtaken by China on our current path during Obama's second term. OTOH, during the 50 consecutive months of job growth following the bush tax cuts, the growth in our economy was greater than the entire economy of China. The US economy is still capable of this kind of surge, greater than we have ever seen.

I would add that 'we' need to also carry the House and make serious gain in the Senate and achieve a mandate for policy change which will come mainly from tying Obama and those Dems to failed policies, not ineligibility claims.

Trump is an alpha male, Obama , , , what's this phrase his people have been using recently? Obama "leads from (or is it "with his") behind."

Trump has what it takes temperamentally to spank a Meredith Veira and the rest of the Pravda press and to speak up FOR the United States. Its just that he stands for himself more than anything else and as expression thereof has a long history of positions whose only principle seems to be his own self-interest.

“We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road they blow them up, we build again, in the meantime we can’t get a f***ing school in Brooklyn,” Trump says.

I saw , , , what's his name, the black businessman/radio commentator , , , on Bret Baier last night. Good interview, also the footage of him showed him tactfully getting in President Bill Clinton's face about Hillary Care-- which shows he has been politically involved for quite some time now. I look forward to some excellent contributions in the debates from him.

I saw , , , what's his name, the black businessman/radio commentator , , , on Bret Baier last night. Good interview, also the footage of him showed him tactfully getting in President Bill Clinton's face about Hillary Care-- which shows he has been politically involved for quite some time now. I look forward to some excellent contributions in the debates from him.

“We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road they blow them up, we build again, in the meantime we can’t get a f***ing school in Brooklyn,” Trump says.

I would point out to the Donald that the democrats he's supported in NY are a big part of the reason for the dysfunction in schools in Brooklyn and elsewhere in NYC.

- With Churchill and Reagan unavailable, we need to check these candidates out and see who will step up, win and preside over a real reform of government. Jay Cost narrows it down to the Governors.------------------Jay Cost has given good political analysis at real clear politics, now at weekly standard. His take on the field is definitely against the grain:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-gop-looks-strong_558450.html (Excerpted)

The conventional wisdom is that the emerging Republican field for 2012 is a very weak one. However, like so much else in the topsy-turvy age of Obama, the conventional wisdom on this one is completely upside down. The idea of a weak GOP field is almost as ridiculous as a debate about a fifty-year-old birth certificate just as the economic recovery comes grinding to a halt. Almost.

In fact, Obama and the Democrats have good reason to worry about the emerging Republican field. Here are four big reasons why.

1. ...there are at least four serious contenders either in the field or looking likely to enter it: Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney all bring a few qualities to the table that would serve them well in the general election. For starters, they’re all governors, meaning their résumés involve running state governments rather than getting bogged down in the ideological divisiveness of Congress. Daniels, Pawlenty, and Romney have all demonstrated crossover appeal – with Pawlenty and Romney winning in historically Democratic states, and Daniels winning reelection in 2008 in Indiana even as Obama carried the state. As for Huntsman’s appeal, Obama was worried enough about it to ship him off to China in 2009.

Republicans should be pleased about this. Evaluating candidates is a subjective process, of course, but a cycle in which the party can point to four serious contenders who would be formidable in a general election battle is a good one.

2. ...The GOP has no such class-based divisions, dominated as it is by the married, white, churchgoing middle class. Really, the major dividing line in the Republican party is between moderately and very conservative voters. This means that the nominee is usually the one who can convince Republicans that he’s conservative, but not so much so that he can’t win a general election.

3. A “fringe” nominee is unlikely... In all likelihood, the nominee in 2012 will be similar to the ones we’ve seen over the last 30 years.

4. An “enthusiasm gap” should not be a problem. Suppose that the GOP does nominate another candidate in line with the Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain tradition. Won’t enthusiasm be a trouble spot for the party base in 2012? Probably not. The conservative base's intense dissatisfaction with the Obama tenure should be more than enough to make up for the fact that the party is not in love with the nominee (and it is possible, by the way, that the party could fall in love with somebody). On top of that, there are enough very serious figures out there who make the base swoon – perfect for the vice presidential nomination. Marco Rubio is the first that comes to mind. Team the junior senator from Florida up with one of those serious would-be presidential nominees, set that ticket against Obama-Biden next year, and you’ll have a great recipe for the most enthusiastic GOP base in decades.

Bottom line: Democrats who are counting on the GOP giving this election away with a weak nominee need to find something else to pin their hopes on. In all likelihood, it isn’t going to happen, and Barack Obama will have to stand for reelection against a serious Republican ticket next year.

- I enjoyed the previous piece on Huntsman with his self reporting to wikipedia on what a deep and serious guy he is. Once he decides what he stands for, please share...

Does he support the Ryan plan? Action in Libya, Syria? The EPA ruling on CO2? Entitlement reform? Healthcare repeal? What federal functions would he turn back to the states? What is his constitutional philosophy on judicial appointments? Moderate interpretation??

Where is he on that debate between Keynes and Hayek?

Would he open drilling? ANWR? Offshore? Deepwater?? Does he favor or oppose higher gas prices?

Did he differ with Obama on China and stand up to him? I think he did but I don't have any details. Did he question Obama on foreign policy before joining his team? What is our China policy if he is Pres.? What about North Korea?

I actually think a moderate Republican President serving with a conservative House and Senate could accomplish a great deal. Pawlenty is certainly more centrist than me. Daniels worked for Bush as budget director while spending escalated. Romney has questionable conservative credentials.

Everyone agrees that Jon Huntsman is returning from China to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. What may be more difficult to determine is why. The Daily Caller reprints two letters from Ambassador Huntsman to his former boss extolling the executive’s virtues, including his status as “a remarkable leader,” his “experience,” and “brilliant analysis of world events.” With a President like the one Huntsman describes already in office, why bother challenging him?

Jon Huntsman, President Obama’s outgoing ambassador to China, is considering running against his boss in 2012 as a Republican.

But two handwritten letters from Huntsman obtained by The Daily Caller raise the question of why he’s not campaigning for Obama instead.

“You are a remarkable leader,” Huntsman wrote to Obama in an Aug. 16, 2009 note, underlining the word “remarkable,” “and it has been a great honor getting to know you.”

Click over to read the letters in their entirety to get a sense of just how obsequious Huntsman got in buttering up the boss. His efforts at blowing sunshine even got directed to Bill Clinton’s skirt in a missives addressed to the former President. Huntsman wrote that Hillary Clinton is “well-read, personable, and has even more charisma than her husband!” And yes, the exclamation point is a direct quote.

Hunstman’s team told the Daily Caller that the leaked letters show just how much the administration fears a Huntsman bid, but I suspect that Huntsman might have guessed wrong about the source. If Huntsman does run for the nomination, he’ll probably focus on attacking Obama’s foreign policy, which means attacking Hillary either directly or indirectly. This looks like an attempt to blunt the impact of Huntsman’s criticisms, as well as some payback for laying the groundwork of a presidential bid while still serving in the Obama administration. If they really feared Huntsman, they would have leaked this in December, not April.

Huntsman doesn’t have much of a chance in this cycle anyway, but the letters don’t add up to a boost in confidence that Huntsman would provide any sharp change in direction from his boss.

The Huntsman letters are interesting. I give him the 'remarkable leader' part if you are his appointee, Obama did run a remarkable campaign and that letter was early in the Presidency. A 'great honor getting to know you' as well, it is a level of respect anyone should have for a new President - before you get to know him.

But Hillary is 'charismatic'? And for Obama: “experience,” what experience? And “brilliant analysis of world events” - who knew? I'm sure he will have the opportunity explain and clarify. Maybe something was going on behind the scenes that we missed. I take these to mean that Huntsman's skill is all about schmoozing and BSing, which is maybe or maybe not the same skill set that one would use to solve the Palestinian question or balance the budget. Personally I don't think next year will be the year of the schmoozer.

Huntsman would fit pretty well on the short list for taking Biden's place whether he runs in the Republican primaries or not. It would be one more way for Obama to appear more centrist without moving an inch.-----

I am not saying it is over; I am saying that by the end of a summer of high unemployment and higher gas prices, Dems will need to at least explore their options.

Today Dems seem lost and just hoping for a weak opponent. They keep hoping he will get his magic back, but the Greek columns were fake. Dems have lost the independents who thought he didn't mean what he said and they lost the energy of the base who thought he did mean what he said. They lost the 2010 elections. They are losing the budget fight. (http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/americans-favor-republicans-handling-of-budget--poll) They are losing crucial states and have no idea which direction to turn.

Right now Obama has all party insiders and donors locked up and on board with nowhere else to turn - just like Hillary did 4 years ago.

Doug, you asked about Huntsman on a different posting, but I agree, time will tell after he explains his position of numerous issues.

But I like the fact, perhaps unlike many on this forum, that he seems to be right/center rather than extreme anything. Obama is too left, others are too right for my taste.

Also, in our shrinking world, like it or not, foreign policy is up front and center. This too is Huntsman's strong point. Not to mention hisknowledge of China which I think is a huge plus. Plus he was governor of Utah and from all accounts he did a good job.

Frankly, I think he is electable. Ideology is important, but you need to win the election to make a difference. Better than Obama don't you think?

And for you in particular Doug, I would think you would like the fact that he is strong Pro-Life.

Thank you JDN, nice post. We come at this from slightly different directions. Where you would like more centrism, I look for a principled conservative that is competent and draws centrists toward conservatism. (Although no one has drawn more people toward conservatism than Obama.)

Looking at Huntsman I find he touts more his skills than his principles, somewhat Clintonesque (without the blue dress), and the 6 years of Clinton serving with a conservative House and Senate were not bad times at all by today's standards.

On foreign policy I don't know if his experience representing the Obama administration in China will be helpful or any clue what the Huntsman Doctrine will be. I honestly don't know what our policy is. Our relationship with China seems fairly neutral right now with two giant countries screwed up in different ways.

"I would think you would like the fact that he is strong Pro-Life."

- So was John Kerry, lol and Clinton - safe legal and rare (at a million a year). In my view, if he (or any candidate/President) is able to read and comprehend the constitution I wouldn't think his personal view of that as a federal official should be of any concern to me. I wonder which article authorizes federal funding of abortion or prohibits the state regulation of it? The relevance there as President will come down to Supreme Court appointments and again I will look to his principles and convictions to predict that.

I like some of Huntsman's ideas, just not the part of them being government-centric. I expect to vote for him if it is he vs. Obama. If he turns out to be another wishy washy McCain-like candidate (and McCain had far more national experience than any of these candidates), and has to reach back to the right during the final stretch - that is not the best strategy to win. Also there are times where winning is not winning IMO, when it leaves my side endorsing the wrong policies and principles.

He is certainly as qualified as any and like him or not he would widen the choices and sharpen the debates. Like GM says, now he needs to decide which side to join. After all, he is a centrist.

I would love to see a moderate Dem or competent centrist of any kind contest the Dem side. Everyone wants to capture the middle. If a true centrist won the Dem and ran against someone too far to the right (whatever that means )... that would be a nice win-win situation.

"My only regret is that we were unable to find time for a China discussion before next week’s departure for Beijing." - Huntsman to Obama

Unf*kcingBelievable.

A Nobel ceremony, 65 rounds of golf, NCAA picks, beer summit, fund raisers, date night in NYC, but no time for a "China discussion" before sending your representative to a third world nuclear power oppressive regime, biggest polluter on the planet, with a seat on the security council and the world's second largest economy. What's to talk about?

Hard to believe the Obama camp leaked that letter. And who takes that job without first having "a China discussion" with the boss??

I don't feel so bad not knowing what our China policy is.

They stood together at the appointment photo-opp and did NOT have a China discussion, but there is no indication in these letters or anything else published that Obama has ever directly spoken with Huntsman. The letter thanked him for his 'note'. Searching google, it looks like Rahm set up the hiring. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=6506779&nid=148 He met with the transition team before the announcement. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22589.html Huntsman came to the White House for the Hu state dinner and sat in the front row. How close is that??

Or as current chief of staff Daley puts it with a smile: "the closeness in which he worked with the president is most appreciated."

I think everyone is happy to see Bin Laden gone, burt what impact will this have on the election?

Well, it can only help Obama.

"Yet it is already clear that assuming the facts hold as we know them now, President Barack Obama and his national security team have been enormously strengthened in the near term. The outpouring of joyous crowds on the streets of New York and Washington -- where people were chanting "USA! USA!" -- show that the news not only electrified Americans but brought us together as a people in a way we haven't seen since 9/11."

"Sunday night was the best of the Obama presidency, injecting a much needed boost into his credibility as a leader."

Two weeks into the Persian Gulf War, Californians overwhelmingly approve of President Bush's decision to attack Iraq and of his handling of the crisis in the Middle East, A NEW LOS ANGELES TIMES POLL FOUND. The poll also revealed that 80% of those surveyed across the state give high marks to Bush's performance as president, which is in line with a nationwide survey conducted shortly after the fighting began. Surprisingly, there were no regional differences reflected in the survey, with 70% of those surveyed in both Los Angeles and San Francisco, for example, agreeing with the President's decision to go to war. Only 44% of blacks agreed with Bush's decision to launch hostilities, compared with 80% of whites.

"Detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had given the courier’s pseudonym to American interrogators and said that the man was a protégé of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. American intelligence officials said Sunday night that they finally learned the courier’s real name four years ago, but that it took another two years for them to learn the general region where he operated."

Returning to the point in question: We need to remember the roll of Perot in derailing Bush 1.

Senior White House officials said early Monday that the trail that led to Osama bin Laden began before 9/11, before the terror attacks that brought bin Laden to prominence. The trail warmed up last fall, when it discovered an elaborate compound in Pakistan.

"From the time that we first recognized bin Laden as a threat, the U.S. gathered information on people in bin Laden's circle, including his personal couriers," a senior official in the Obama administration said in a background briefing from the White House.

After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "detainees gave us information on couriers. One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave us his nom de guerre, his pseudonym, and also identified this man as one of the few couriers trusted by bin Laden." (Detainees, like in the Gitmo facility Obama was going to close within the first year of his presidency? Were these detainees waterboarded?-GM)In 2007, the U.S. learned the man's name.

In 2009, "we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated. They were very careful, reinforcing belief we were on the right track."

In August 2010, "we found their home in Abbottabad," not in a cave, not right along the Afghanistan border, but in an affluent suburb less than 40 miles from the capital.

In the end it was the faltering economy, which had bedeviled him all year, that did George Bush in.

From the New Hampshire primary in February, through the party conventions this summer, to the start of the general-election campaign on Labor Day, public opinion held remarkably steady: three-quarters of the American people, according to New York Times/CBS News polls, disapproved of the way the President was handling the economy.

Mr. Bush failed to change their minds with his furious closing onslaught against Bill Clinton's character. More than 7 voters in 10 said in interviews as they left their polling places yesterday that they considered the economy not so good or poor, and a big majority opted for giving the Arkansas Governor a chance to turn it around. Though many had doubts about a man untried on the national stage, they had lost faith in Mr. Bush's ability to do the job, and they found Ross Perot too much of a gamble.--------Snip--

It was not just the hard economic statistics that dogged the President, not just the shuttered shops and lost jobs from Alameda, Calif., to Zanesville, Ohio, that cost him dear. It was also a pervasive if less quantifiable sense of economic foreboding, a fear that the United States was losing its manufacturing base and economic leadership to Germany and Japan.

The current recession had an extra political cost that earlier ones did not, because it hit not only manual laborers but also large numbers of white-collar, and highly skilled, highly paid blue-collar workers who suspected that their jobs were gone forever.

If there was a leitmotif to the 1992 campaign, it was the comment heard on a thousand doorsteps and a hundred bar stools: "I'm worried my kids will never have it as good as I do."

Such economic worries easily overcame the social concerns that had dominated most of the last six Presidential elections, all but one of them won by the Republicans. Concern about jobs -- and about the closely allied subjects of health care and education -- trumped racial tensions, fears about crime and even fervent appeals to patriotism.

That was especially true among the urban, socially conservative, largely Catholic Democrats who have been voting for Republican Presidential candidates in recent decades -- a pivotal block this year. Exit polling by Voter Research and Surveys, a consortium of the leading television networks, showed that half the Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan and half those who backed Mr. Bush four years ago came back to Mr. Clinton in yesterday's balloting.

So George Bush suffered the fate of William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, the only other elected Presidents in this century to be turned out of the Oval Office.

In one important sense, his defeat was the most ignominious of all, because he had held such a commanding position, with a stratospheric 88 percent approval rating in March of last year, and allowed it to disintegrate so quickly.

"He was the king of the mountain after the Persian Gulf War," said J. Robinson West, a Republican who served in both the Ford and Reagan Administrations. "He could have achieved almost anything. He was so popular that if he had drawn up a program, gone to Capitol Hill and battled for it, Congress would not have dared defy him. But he didn't do anything at all."

Here it comes. He is now the greatest leader of all time and all questions about his commitment to America as we knew it are suddenly not valid. I thought the mention that he instructed Panetta to make the getting of Osama a top priority was rather shameless. As though it wasn't already a top priority? Narcissist aside, it is a great day for America. BTW it is no coincidence it was announced the same day as Hitler's death.

***US President Barack Obama announces the death of Osama Bin Laden at The White ouse in Washington DC on … By Slate slate – Mon May 2, 6:21 am ETBy John DickersonSlate

At approximately 11:30 p.m. Sunday, President Obama announced to the nation that on his orders U.S forces had killed Osama Bin Laden. His reputation for lawyerly inaction may never recover.

Obama's critics have said that he is a weak leader in general and in particular does not understand what must be done to combat terrorism. "They are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required," said former Vice President Dick Cheney in March 2009, in a typical remark. Yet what emerges from the details of Bin Laden's killing (offered, like the heroic accounts of the Bush years, entirely by officials who work for the sitting president) is that from early in his administration Obama was focused on killing Osama Bin Laden and that he was involved in the process throughout.

In June 2009, Obama directed his CIA director to "provide me within 30 days a detailed operation plan for locating and bringing to justice" Osama Bin Laden. By August 2010 intelligence officials had identified the suspicious compound where Osama lived. Thirty-five minutes outside Islamabad, the walls were up to 18 feet high and topped with barbed wire. The largest structure, a three-story building, had very few windows. Though the house was valued at $1 million, it had no Internet or phone service. Its residents, unlike their neighbors, burned their trash.

Detainees being held at Guantanamo provided some of the strongest information about those who were trusted by Bin Laden. They identified a courier and his brother who lived inAbbottabad, Pakistan, an affluent suburb where a lot of retired Pakistani military officers live.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

The final phase of the painstaking process started in mid-February. Intelligence officials started to get good information on the compound. A series of meetings were held in the White House to develop aggressive intelligence gathering operations.Â A family lived at the compound that matched the description of the Bin Laden family.Â By mid-March the president was chairing the national security meetings on the operation. (In all he would chair five such meetings, including the ones on the day the operation took place.)

(Commentary and analysis on killing Osama bin Laden)

Early Friday morning before departing to view tornado damage in Alabama, the president gave the order to initiate the operation to kill Bin Laden. On Sunday, he met throughout the day in the Situation Room, making final preparations and receiving updates.

The assault team arrived by helicopter. Administration officials were vague about what happened next. Bin Laden "did resist the assault force" and he was killed in a firefight, which leaves plenty of room for details to come out in the screenplay. Bin Laden's oldest son and the two couriers were also killed. One woman, whom a senior administration official said was used as a shield by one of the men, was killed. Two other women were injured.

At about 4 p.m., the president received first word that his orders had very likely led to the successful assassination of the architect of the greatest attack ever on America.

No other country, including Pakistan, knew of the attack, but the president in his remarks was clear that the operation couldn't have taken place without the help of the Pakistani government. "Our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding."

The president went to sleep to the sound of cheering outside the White House. At Ground Zero in New York and towns across the country, people gathered to sing the national anthem and chant "USA! USA!" It was a flicker of the post-9/11 unity that the president had referenced in his remarks earlier in the evening.

In his remarks announcing the operation, the president sought to rekindle that feeling, but he went further. He made the latest in a series of paeans to the American spirit. Under assault from conservatives who say he does not believe in the idea of American exceptionalism, Obama took the opportunity to reiterate his belief in the unique qualities of his countrymen:

Today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. … Tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place. Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thus did the president both answer his conservative critics and rise above them. Yes, he was saying, I do believe in American exceptionalism—and so should any terrorist who would wish America ill. All in all, it was a good night to be president.***